On 31 Jan 95 19:10:07 +0000, Johnathan Taylor said: > On (30 Jan 95) [EMAIL PROTECTED] pedantically wrote... > > Excuse me... how on earth do you copyright a file extension??
> This message is (C) Copyright 1995 Johnathan Taylor! > In a similar manner a file-extension used for the first time by a program can > be covered by a Copyright This does not follow logically. You placed the copyright notice within an intellectual work, but it is pretty difficult to place one within a file extension. Copyrights protect your works of art/literature from being stolen. Patents protect your inventions from being stolen. Trademarks protect you from improper association. None of these seems to cover the file names that people use to name their own files. > if I did > not perform the act of typing the copyright notice it would be legally public > domain in most parts of the world, whilst in a couple of places just the fact > that I wrote the message means that I'd still own the rights to the message > and > contents! As far as I know, in this country your work is copyright regardless of whether you place an explicit copyright notice on it. > >> .BAS is normally a non-tokenised BASIC source listing > > Don't believe you. PC BASIC people save their programs as ".BAS" all the > > time. > I don't care if you believe me or not! IBM-PC Basic is NOT the original BASIC! > Microsoft BASIC for CP/M was about before PC was even conceived and IS a non- > tokenised language... Um... the fact that something was the case 15 years ago does not seem to imply that it is "normally" the case! > .CMD ARE ORIGINALLY CP/M-86 BINARY EXECUTABLES! MUCH LATER OS/2 stole the > extension for it's ASCII batch files also called REXX programs. Ditto. > > Then what is a ".PIC" file? > I refer you to the paragraph it was mentioned in! It's a flippin > graphics image file... sigh I know that, but what I wanted to know was what format it is in, which you neglected to mention. > >> Why does the SAM *NEED* three character filename extensions on its own > >> filesystem? > > Because most of your average files are CODE files, and the directory > > information which says "CODE 65238,112643" is of almost exactly no use > > to you whatsoever. > Autoexec CODE files also have an execute address attribute bits.... That's correct, but it doesn't show up in the DIR listing. > I expect that one day people will leave the speccy programing behind and use > featureless binary data-files ie OPENTYPE instead of ram-bound CODE files! Possible, but irrelevant. And "this is a featureless file of length 52346" gives even less information than "CODE 65238,112643"! > How would you feel if after you FTP'd a 100Megs of .au files to find out that > they weren't sun .au files? Precisely! This is exactly why we are discussing file types here. Earlier you seemed to suggest that they were unnecessary. This is not the case, as you now admit. There is a huge difference between the following files, which is only evident by the filetype. sample.au 221 CODE 65238,112643 sample.pak221 CODE 65238,112643 > And before you say it .z IS a gzip'd extension .Z IS for a compressed files > extension .gz is only required when sending a gzip'd tar to a brain-damaged > 8.3 > upper-case only filesystem like a PeeCee. And again don't bother trying to > argue I KNOW this to be the case and won't take the bait! It is not true (and I KNOW this to be the case). All modern versions of gzip use ".gz". ".gz" is the official filetype for gzipped files. The reason why it was changed from ".z" was nothing to do with the PC. It was because ".z" was already in use by another utility, namely "pack". So there. imc
